Asylum Seekers in Ireland

inforfun

Morlar wrote: »

Bloody dutch - coming over here taking all our job. ... (joking - sorry couldnt resist!)

Not to go off topic - but I read somewhere that indigenous dutch in holland are set to become a minority in 2018 - would you know if this is true /way off the mark - close to the mark ?

Well, there are people actually making that remark without joking.
Only thing i say to them, here is the key to my office, 7.30 start and oh... how is your dutch.
End of conversation....

I dont know about 2018. At the moment there are 2 million foreigners living in Holland. I am not sure if that includes kids born out of foreigners.
What i do know is that the major cities are very close to have over 50% non dutch. That is about 45% at this moment.
And it goes fast, real fast.
If i just look at the days i was in school, there were 3 or 4 Non Dutch kids. And they were from former colonies of Holland or adopted
Nowadays, most of all in the big cities, you ll be lucky to find 3 or 4 Dutch kids in a classroom.

Here is a nice clip .... enjoy.
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/37878/be12f8e9/morgen_melden_bij_de_congierce_.html

Croc

Hobbes wrote: »

Can we skip the obvious crap that some people are spouting. There is a difference between an Asylum seeker, Refugee and immigrants. No one has mentioned immigrant yet but certainly the other two seem to be loosely thrown around.

For example Mike48191 refers to Refugees, not asylum seekers. You should read up on the difference.

Also the comment referring to why can they claim asylum from Nigeria because it isn't war torn, etc. That doesn't matter. There is at least one reported instance of a person from the USA claiming asylum in England a few years back and getting it.



What makes you think they all got thier connecting flight in the EU? Or passed through immigration in that EU country? Or if they didn't arrive on a boat? Even so PSI points out the system.

I think you should apply that comment to yourself.

"Application for asylum` means: a request whereby an alien seeks from a Member State protection under the Geneva Convention by claiming refugee status within the meaning of Article 1 of the Geneva Convention, as amended by the New York Protocol"

Thats a direct quote from the wording of the Dublin Convention, Article 1b. which can be read here http://ec.europa.eu/infonet/library/a/97c25401/en.htm.

I think we are going completely off the topice here we were asked a simple question by the OP and i answered it as best as i could, i may not have been 100% actuate but i was close enough, there have been different interpretations on whats what here e,g, if you actually cross borders when u are in transit through an airport etc.

I don't think thats the point here. The asylum process was set up to aid genuine refugees from war etc not economic refugees. These so called asylum seekers who have circumventing the law to suit themselves and engage in Selective Asylum Application not because they would be better protected in one country that another but simply because there is a better welfare system etc in the country they choose are screwing up the whole system by jamming it up with false applications and consequently causing untold suffering for those who are genuine refugees, whose applications could have been processed years ago and could now be settled here raising family's and in gainful employment

In conclusion, in case anyone gets the wrong impression i welcome genuine refugees to this country and for that matter immigrants irrespective of race color or creed, what i do resent is people screwing the system for person gain.

You might also Google "The Dublin II Regulation" which replaced the Dublin Convention one of the main reasons for its introduction was to prevent ‘Asylum Shopping’ .

paulizei

Why are we letting people from Holland in here?

Ireland - a conservative catholic country.
Holland - a protestant country with legalised abortion, drugs, prostitution and all the rest. And haven't we had have enough problems with protestants up north without asking for more?

They will ruin our culture.


I'm not trolling, I'm being "non-pc."

inforfun

paulizei wrote: »

Why are we letting people from Holland in here?

Ireland - a conservative catholic country.
Holland - a protestant country with legalised abortion, drugs, prostitution and all the rest. And haven't we had have enough problems with protestants up north without asking for more?

They will ruin our culture.


I'm not trolling, I'm being "non-pc."

You are sure you want me to answer that? In my own not exactly political correct way?.

mike4819

Morlar wrote: »

My honest opinion is that there are a lot of non pc people on here (based on meeting some irl) its just that they are too afraid to step out of line as they would rather not have to deal with the kind of crap mentioned above.

For heaven's sake step out, don't let THEM control the debate. If you are concerned with the fate of your own culture and people, you are automatically branded (horror of horrors) a RACIST. which is of course pure bull****, but it has so far effectively stopped healthy debate.
If you come to the realization that Ireland is 32,000 sq. miles and Nigeria is fully 10 times that size, well your just not supposed to take note of such trivialities.

GuanYin

Exactly what aspect of our culture is being lost and how is it the Nigerian asylum seekers fault?

American culture has done more damage to Irish culture than African, Asian or Easten European, cultures will ever do?

It's been well documented that first generation migrants (from whatever political class) rarely integrate into their new societies. Their children generally do. Their grandchildren do so even more.

A case in point would be the Irish population in America, who, despite their proudness of their Irish heritage, have about as much connection to Ireland as any other American you'd like to pick.

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

I read somewhere that indigenous dutch in holland are set to become a minority in 2018

Seems very unlikely. This is a plot of native Dutch as a percentage of the total population:

Presently, the percentage is about 80.6%. If current trends continue, this will decline slightly to about 79.2% in 2018.

Zombrex

Croc wrote: »

I think you should apply that comment to yourself.

"Application for asylum` means: a request whereby an alien seeks from a Member State protection under the Geneva Convention by claiming refugee status within the meaning of Article 1 of the Geneva Convention, as amended by the New York Protocol"

Thats a direct quote from the wording of the Dublin Convention, Article 1b. which can be read here http://ec.europa.eu/infonet/library/a/97c25401/en.htm.

An "asylum seeker" is a person formally applying for asylum. Anyone can apply for asylum, anywhere. I could apply for asylum tomorrow in Britain. As is often said here there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. You can't illegally apply for asylum, and you are legally allowed stay in the country until your asylum action has been processed.

A "refugee" is someone granted permission to stay in the country under the grounds of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. Again there is no such thing as an illegal refugee, if you are a refugee you are by definition been granted refugee status.

Croc wrote: »

I don't think thats the point here. The asylum process was set up to aid genuine refugees from war etc not economic refugees.

As Hobbes said, there is no such thing as an "economic refugee" as opposed to a "genuine refugee"

A refugee is a person granted refugee status in a country. By definition you are determined to be genuine.

Croc wrote: »

These so called asylum seekers who have circumventing the law to suit themselves and engage in Selective Asylum Application

Again, it is not illegal to apply for asylum in any country in the EU.

You don't "circumvent the law" by doing this. There is no legal requirement on an asylum seeker to apply for asylum in the first EU state they enter. That is a misrepresentation of the Dublin Convention.

It is up the EU itself to determine who is legally responsible for process the application, not the asylum seeker.

Croc wrote: »

not because they would be better protected in one country that another but simply because there is a better welfare system etc in the country they choose

Is a person not better protected in a country with a better welfare system?

Croc wrote: »

You might also Google "The Dublin II Regulation" which replaced the Dublin Convention one of the main reasons for its introduction was to prevent ‘Asylum Shopping’ .

"Asylum shopping" is applying for a asylum in a number of different EU countries at the same time, and basically picking the one you want out of the ones that grant you refugee status. This, obviously, causes legal headaches when it comes to the status of someone granted refugee status, since a refugee has particular legal meaning and normally means a person cannot move freely to other EU countries without a visa, unlike EU citizens.

"Asylum shopping" is not moving through the EU to one country that is not your first entry, where you then apply for asylum in that country. That is not an illegal action, nor in my view is it an immoral.

Zombrex

mike4819 wrote: »

For heaven's sake step out, don't let THEM control the debate. If you are concerned with the fate of your own culture and people, you are automatically branded (horror of horrors) a RACIST. which is of course pure bull****, but it has so far effectively stopped healthy debate.

A racist is a person who makes and accepts a judgment of an individual based on a stereotype associated with the persons "race" (which more often than not means skin color, or ethnic origin).

This judgment is often excused by the people who make it by saying that such and such group of people are "too culturally different" to fit into Irish culture, which is why they object to Africans or Eastern European but for some reason don't mind Americans, French, Spanish, Scottish or English people coming and living here and destroying our native culture.

mike4819 wrote: »

If you come to the realization that Ireland is 32,000 sq. miles and Nigeria is fully 10 times that size, well your just not supposed to take note of such trivialities.

Why would you take note of that in the first place?

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

Seems very unlikely. This is a plot of native Dutch as a percentage of the total population:

Presently, the percentage is about 80.6%. If current trends continue, this will decline slightly to about 79.2% in 2018.

That plot starts at 1994 is that when the study dates from ? What is the source of that jpg ? Who carried out the study and when ?

Your agreeing with a forecast of approx 1% decrease over 10 years ? I would have thought that the margin of error on ANY 10 year prediction would be greater than the total prediction in your source (which is still unknown).

Considering lower birth rates among indigenous dutch - traditionally higher birth rates among immigrants - considering the birth rates in the countries of origin and the shifting levels of immigration all these variables- they would all have to consistently match the model behind the estimate ?

It seems unlikely to me that a 1% shift over 10 years can be accurate.

Is that the baseline prediction ? Would it not be normal to have say - 3 predictions in a comprehensive study ?

An optimistic, pessimistic and mid-way one ?

Why not post a link so people can evaluate the source and view it in context ?

inforfun

Morlar wrote: »

Why not post a link so people can evaluate the source and view it in context ?

Morlar,

I think it was you yesterday asking for information.
This link http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/bevolking/nieuws/default.htm?Languageswitch=on is going to the CBS in Holland. Some, suposedly, independant institution that only keeps themselves busy with statistics.
And guess what... it is even in English....

Zombrex

Morlar wrote: »

Why not post a link so people can evaluate the source and view it in context ?

Or he could just say "I read it some where"

What ever the statistics djpbarry put forward would you not agree that it is highly unlikely, baring natural disaster, that non-native Dutch would out number native Dutch in 2018?

Morlar

Wicknight wrote: »

Or he could just say "I read it some where" :

Typical. I asked a question - open to anybody to answer with facts. I did not make a statement and then back it up with a jpg.

If you are honest you you will admit that there is a bit of a difference there.

Wicknight wrote: »

What ever the statistics djpbarry put forward would you not agree that it is highly unlikely, baring natural disaster, that non-native Dutch would out number native Dutch in 2018?

In all honesty its hard to say - on the basis of a jpeg ? I would need a bit more than that - I dont know where the date of 2018 came from in my question - I think it was either - the spectator, the economist (print magazines) or it was a conference video the name of which I cant remember.

Its 100% possible that the date of 2018 is wrong - I asked a question to get clarification. I dont consider jpeg clarification.

But now that this has cropped up Iwouldnt mind seeing the figures.

I dont trust a jpg without more information or a context - I have already given the reasons why not (which you conveniently ignored). I am not saying that 1% increase over 10 years is impossible - I am just saying it would help to know the source, its date and context.

On politics forum I am constantly asked for multiple links to prove common knowledge and also have links sources brought into question on the basis of where the film content is stored (not on the production of the film).

So with that in mind I dont think its unreasonable to ask for date and context to a jpg source ?

Surely it would be easier to post a link than create a mspaint ctrl+c screenshot - drag a box to remove the context. Post the screenshot crop on a hosting site and then post a link? Surely it would be easier to post a link in the first place along with the relevant page number.

inforfun

Wicknight wrote: »

What ever the statistics djpbarry put forward would you not agree that it is highly unlikely, baring natural disaster, that non-native Dutch would out number native Dutch in 2018?

Highly unlikely. It is only 10 years till 2018.

I remember reading somewehre that 2050/60 is more the period that it will happen.
And then only if you count kids from non dutch parents, even if only 1 of them is non dutch.
Situation nowadays is like this: Dutch couples get 1, maybe 2 kids. And our beloved immigrants at least 2x that number (our child support is rather good).
Each and every year 100.000 people leave the country, about the same amount come in. But when you look who leaves, ( native Dutch) and who comes in (brides for arranged marriages most of all) you might understand that it is going fast, real fast.

djpbarry

Morlar wrote: »

That plot starts at 1994 is that when the study dates from ? What is the source of that jpg ? Who carried out the study and when ?

It's not a study as such, just an Excel plot I produced using the most up-to-date data, which is available here. I extrapolated the figure for 2018 based on the current trend. It is of course just an estimate.

The point here, as Wicknight has already stated, is that the chances of native Dutch people being a minority in the Netherlands in 2018, or even 2028, are extremely unlikely. The percentage of native Dutch has decreased by about 3.3% over the last 10 years, but this decrease has slowed considerably in recent years (0.1 - 0.2% per annum). Why would it decrease by another 30.7% over the coming 10 years?

Such a scenario seems very unlikely when you consider:

1. The number of applications for asylum in the Netherlands has decreased significantly since 2001.
2. The majority of asylum permits granted during this period have been temporary permits.
3. The number of individuals removed from the country on administrative grounds (such as failed asylum seekers) has increased dramatically since 2002.
4. The number of immigrants per annum from 1996-2007 has held relatively steady between about 97,000 - 125,000 on average (most of whom are from so-called western nations) .

Besides, all of this has little to do with Ireland. Two of the main reasons why the Netherlands has such a relatively large immigrant community are:

1. Post WWII, large numbers of immigrants arrived from former Dutch colonies such as Indonesia, Surinam and Dutch Antilles.
2. In the 60's and 70's, large numbers of Turkish and Moroccan migrants were invited to work in the Netherlands.

Aside from these nationalities, the remaining largest "ethnic" groups in the Netherlands are German, Belgian and British.

Tha Gopher

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If I get a connecting flight from Dublin to Sydney via Singapore, and I go straight from my aerlingus (or whatever) flight to Singapore to my Quantas flight to Australia, without ever actually entering into Singaporese territory. I might physically set foot on Singaporeseian soil, but I have not entered it's territory.

Hence connecting flights.

Eh......right.

So if by some miracle Osama bin Laden boards a plane in Karachi bound for Canada with a stopover in JFK, the US authorities cannot legally* arrest him as Pakistan was the last state he was legally "logged" as being present in, and therefore they would have to try and get an extradition order by Pakistan through immediately? Or wait until he arrived in Canada, then request extradition? (something rather unlikely, as Im sure the Canadians would have issues extraditing people to face a death sentence)

*: imagining, of course, that the US doesnt engage in legally questionable kidnappings or speedy extraditions from Pakistan of course.

What if I am flying through Singapore on my way to Oz and my bag bursts, spilling a kilo of cocaine on the airport floor. I hope I get you as my lawyer, as id rather take the rap for it in Britain than the Singapore justice system.

Mother of god, stop, please.

re the Dutch thing, becoming a minority in their own country hasnt worked out for the native Americans, Aboriginies, Maori, Palestinians, South American tribes, native Irish pre the plantations.....I could go on. The only prosperous nations where is has happened to the benefit of the natives are the gulf states like UAE.

Wicknight wrote: »

No one has ever been banned on the politics forum for disagreeing with someone.

Demonstrate me wrong ...

I have. It was lifted within an hour after I pointed it out via PM.

Morlar

djpbarry wrote: »

It's not a study as such, just an Excel plot I produced using the most up-to-date data, which is available here. I extrapolated the figure for 2018 based on the current trend. It is of course just an estimate.

The point here, as Wicknight has already stated, is that the chances of native Dutch people being a minority in the Netherlands in 2018, or even 2028, are extremely unlikely. The percentage of native Dutch has decreased by about 3.3% over the last 10 years, but this decrease has slowed considerably in recent years (0.1 - 0.2% per annum). Why would it decrease by another 30.7% over the coming 10 years?

Such a scenario seems very unlikely when you consider:

1. The number of applications for asylum in the Netherlands has decreased significantly since 2001.
2. The majority of asylum permits granted during this period have been temporary permits.
3. The number of individuals removed from the country on administrative grounds (such as failed asylum seekers) has increased dramatically since 2002.
4. The number of immigrants per annum from 1996-2007 has held relatively steady between about 97,000 - 125,000 on average (most of whom are from so-called western nations) .

Besides, all of this has little to do with Ireland. Two of the main reasons why the Netherlands has such a relatively large immigrant community are:

1. Post WWII, large numbers of immigrants arrived from former Dutch colonies such as Indonesia, Surinam and Dutch Antilles.
2. In the 60's and 70's, large numbers of Turkish and Moroccan migrants were invited to work in the Netherlands.

Aside from these nationalities, the remaining largest "ethnic" groups in the Netherlands are German, Belgian and British.

That is pretty shocking imo. I think I was right to question your source after all.

To clarify - you extrapolate data from 5 years previous - you take that data and extrapolate it forward 10 years without factoring in ANY change in ANY variables (for example increase/decrease in rates of immigration, increase/decrease in levels of outward emigration, projected changes in birth rates in source countries (ie if birth rates in turkey increase the amount of turkish immigrants will also increase) - so you do this and then present it as a valid,legitimate and comprehensively arrived at number?

You are not permitted to use yourself as a source of a study. I could be wrong on that as I have never seen it (anywhere) before - perhaps a moderator can clarify if thats acceptable ?

At the very least if you want to extrapolate numbers and then present them as if they were part of a legitimate study - you should at least inform people that the numbers are your own the 'plot' is one you created in excel.

GuanYin

Morlar wrote: »

You are not permitted to use yourself as a source of a study. I could be wrong on that as I have never seen it (anywhere) before - perhaps a moderator can clarify if thats acceptable ?

Are you making up the rules for us now?

He's not using himself as a source, he's VERY clearly stated how he came about his data and is not claiming it to be new or infallible. It is there for people to view and judge for what it is.

While I agree that extrapolation of data forward by a factor of 2 past its original scope is hardly going to be rigorously accurate, I'm interested to know what factors you and others think would change the current trend drastically.

djpbarry

Did you read anything in my last post beyond "It's not a study as such, just an Excel plot I produced..." ?

Morlar wrote: »

To clarify - you extrapolate data from 5 years previous...

No, I analysed legitimate data (for which I have provided a source) for 10 years, as that is all that was available.

Morlar wrote: »

...you take that data and extrapolate it forward 10 years without factoring in ANY change in ANY variables (for example increase/decrease in rates of immigration, increase/decrease in levels of outward emigration, projected changes in birth rates in source countries (ie if birth rates in turkey increase the amount of turkish immigrants will also increase)

I clearly stated that this was a valid estimate "if current trends continue", some of which are outlined in my previous post.

Morlar wrote: »

You are not permitted to use yourself as a source of a study.

I never claimed that the plot was from any study. You assumed that it was and accused me of attempting to mislead people:

Morlar wrote: »

Surely it would be easier to post a link than create a mspaint ctrl+c screenshot - drag a box to remove the context. Post the screenshot crop on a hosting site and then post a link? Surely it would be easier to post a link in the first place along with the relevant page number.

You asked me for the source of the data I plotted and I provided it. If you don't agree with my reasoning and still think the Dutch are at risk (from something), that's your opinion.

Morlar wrote: »

At the very least if you want to extrapolate numbers and then present them as if they were part of a legitimate study - you should at least inform people that the numbers are your own the 'plot' is one you created in excel.

The numbers are not my own and they are part of a legitimate study - I have already provided the source, as has inforfun.

Besides, if I am guilty of presenting my own opinion as fact (which I do not believe I am, as I have clearly explained my reasoning), then so are you:

Morlar wrote: »

if birth rates in turkey increase the amount of turkish immigrants will also increase

Morlar

psi wrote: »

Are you making up the rules for us now?

No - I am not making up rules for anybody - which is why I said I could be wrong but I dont think you can be your own source.

psi wrote: »

He's not using himself as a source, he's VERY clearly stated how he came about his data and is not claiming it to be new or infallible. It is there for people to view and judge for what it is.

Your moving the chronology here - at the time he posted the jpg he did not 'VERY clearly state' how he came about his data. He posted it as if it were part of some seperate independent study - which is why I asked him for a context and a date and a source. I disagree that it is there for people to view and judge for what it is - it is NOW because he was asked several times and finally clarified - at the time of his post it was not 'there for people to view and judge for what it is'. How could it be when the source, independence, date and context were unknown ?

psi wrote: »

While I agree that extrapolation of data forward by a factor of 2 past its original scope is hardly going to be rigorously accurate, I'm interested to know what factors you and others think would change the current trend drastically.

I specifically mentioned factors which would affect accuracy of simply mathematically extrapolating a limited set of numbers forward.

Zombrex

Morlar wrote: »

Typical. I asked a question - open to anybody to answer with facts. I did not make a statement and then back it up with a jpg.

If you are honest you you will admit that there is a bit of a difference there.

Ah yes, the old Fox News trick of putting forward an agenda in the form of questions and then retreating behind the excuse that they are just asking the question, not saying it is true.

"I hear your mother is a whore who likes to suck off donkeys. Is there any truth to that? What?!? I'm not saying your mum is a whore who likes to suck off donkeys. I'm just asking is that a true statement? I'm just asking a question"

Morlar wrote: »

In all honesty its hard to say - on the basis of a jpeg ?

How is it hard to say?

2018 is only ten years away. The "native" population of Holland is 13.2 million people (people with both parents being born in the country)

In ten years time are a heck of a lot of the population going to die, or are millions of immigrants going to arrive?

How could anyone possibly think that the native population of Holland would be out numbered in 10 years.

Morlar wrote: »

But now that this has cropped up Iwouldnt mind seeing the figures.

http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/table.asp?STB=T&LA=en&DM=SLEN&PA=37556eng&D1=0-44&D2=1,11,21,31,41,51,61,71,81,91,101,l&HDR=G1

Morlar wrote: »

So with that in mind I dont think its unreasonable to ask for date and context to a jpg source ?

Certainly not unreasonable. But it is a little rich, when the post was in response to your original nonsense "question"

But anyway you have been given figures.

Do they satisfy you that this isn't going to happen in Holland?

Morlar

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah yes, the old Fox News trick of putting forward an agenda in the form of questions and then retreating behind the excuse that they are just asking the question, not saying it is true.

I mentioned a civil question in passing to a person who happened to be dutch. Not exactly the same thing now is it ?

Wicknight wrote: »

Certainly not unreasonable. But it is a little rich, when the post was in response to your original nonsense "question"

In what way is it a nonsense question ? As you know and as mentioned - I said in passing that I read somewhere that the amount of indigenous dutch people in holland would be a minority in 2018 - I asked this to a dutch person who it is reasonable to assume may know. It was open to anybody with information on it to clarify. I specifically said - is this an estimate near the mark / far from the mark or whatever. It was not a statement dressed up as a question. I am 99% sure I now have the source for where I read it in the first place - I just want to clarify before I put if forward - will that resolve this dilemna you have as to the sincerity of whether it was an honest question or not ? Maybe at that point you can learn some manners.

Zombrex

Morlar wrote: »

I mentioned a civil question in passing to a person who happened to be dutch. Not exactly the same thing now is it ?

Doesn't matter. The point is that this question trick is a way to put forward a vague idea that something is happening without any requirement to actually support it that assertion.

"Is John Kerry a war criminal?"

"Did Bill Clinton hit his house keeper?"

"George Bush, the best president ever?"

Morlar wrote: »

In what way is it a nonsense question ?

How could you possibly think that in ten years time there would be 13+ million non-nationals living in Holland considering there are 3+ million now?

How would that even happen? What part of that isn't nonsense?

Morlar wrote: »

will that resolve this dilemna you have as to the sincerity of whether it was an honest question or not ? Maybe at that point you can learn some manners.

Give it a go, and we will see ....

GuanYin

To be fair, I don't think he's being his own source.

Morlar wrote: »

Your moving the chronology here - at the time he posted the jpg he did not 'VERY clearly state' how he came about his data. He posted it as if it were part of some seperate independent study - which is why I asked him for a context and a date and a source. I disagree that it is there for people to view and judge for what it is - it is NOW because he was asked several times and finally clarified - at the time of his post it was not 'there for people to view and judge for what it is'. How could it be when the source, independence, date and context were unknown ?

Agreed and apologies, however, I think it was clear by the time I viewed it - which is now it's final standing in any case.

I specifically mentioned factors which would affect accuracy of simply mathematically extrapolating a limited set of numbers forward.

Indeed you did, but are these issues the case does anyone know - the model seems a more reasonable and logical end result than some of the other theories being bandied about (I'm not having a pop, I'm curious if anyone can critique the model).

Morlar

Wicknight wrote: »

Doesn't matter. The point is that this question trick is a way to put forward a vague idea that something is happening without any requirement to actually support it that assertion.

Your continuing down the road of attacking the character/good faith of someone without any proof whatsoever.

Wicknight wrote: »

How could you possibly think that in ten years time there would be 13+ million non-nationals living in Holland considering there are 3+ million now?

My big crime was that I asked a question to find out how much truth there was to it - rather than simply accept it at face value.

Wicknight wrote: »

Give it a go, and we will see ....

We will see what exactly ?

You have said that

"Or he could just say "I read it some where" - implying I invented it.
"Ah yes, the old Fox News trick of putting forward an agenda in the form of questions" - again in effect calling me insincere/a liar and saying that I am using some kind of underhand 'fox tactic' of making up a statement in the form of a question. You have no basis whatsoever for going on like this - I really reckon you should learn some manners.

Morlar

psi wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think he's being his own source.

We can agree to disagree on that. I actually thought he would say something like 'university of liverpool 1983' or something in which case I was going to question (among other things) the resources behind it as 1% over 10 years into the future with no margin of error is not credible imo.

psi wrote: »

TAgreed and apologies, however, I think it was clear by the time I viewed it - which is now it's final standing in any case.

Fair enough - not really looking for an apology so much as a moderator to clear up if this is ok behaviour? At the least I think that if people are going to do this they need to cleary say its a figure they created in excel. If it is ok to do this then we can all start=>run excel and get cracking. I know this sounds/looks trivial but its not in my view for reasons already mentioned.

psi wrote: »

Indeed you did, but are these issues the case does anyone know - the model seems a more reasonable and logical end result than some of the other theories being bandied about (I'm not having a pop, I'm curious if anyone can critique the model).

Thats sort of the point imo ! If you put forward a number without considering any of the potential variables (and I only mentioned 2 or 3 that sprung to mind) then there is no way of knowing how far from reality the number you put forward actually is.

I believe the birth rates in countries that make up immigrants to holland are bound to fluctuate - if there is was say for example an blip that caused an upsurge in births say in 1999 (which would cause a higher number of 18 year olds to be looking to immigrate) in 2017 - I honestly dont know. Wars and refugee movements need to be looked at too.

GuanYin

Morlar wrote: »

Thats sort of the point imo ! If you put forward a number without considering any of the potential variables (and I only mentioned 2 or 3 that sprung to mind) then there is no way of knowing how far from reality the number you put forward actually is.

I believe the birth rates in countries that make up immigrants to holland are bound to fluctuate - if there is was say for example an blip that caused an upsurge in births say in 1999 (which would cause a higher number of 18 year olds to be looking to immigrate) in 2017 - I honestly dont know. Wars and refugee movements need to be looked at too.

But why do you believe they will fluctuate in a manner that is more favourable to your point of view? There could equally be a blip causing a drop in birthrate - it being a blip and all.

In any case, ALL of these types of conjecture, including the one put forward that prompted the extrapolation, suffer from exactly the same potential variables.

The one in question looks far more reasonable to me (and I've a professional training in such projections, I'm a trained epidemiologist) than the wild predictions in other posts.

Morlar

psi wrote: »

But why do you believe they will fluctuate in a manner that is more favourable to your point of view? There could equally be a blip causing a drop in birthrate - it being a blip and all.

In fairness at this point the numbers arent the most important question its the principle of whether or not its ok to create a pie chart or a bar graph in excel (based on an extrapolation of limited data) and then present it as evidence to re-inforce your viewpoint without actually specifying that it is something you created in excel based on x,y,z.

If you do that without giving a context, date or a source it does look like it is part of a more independent and legitimate study in my view. That was certainly the case when it happened here earlier on today. To my knowledge on boards/politics that is the first time anyone has posted a link to a graph or a chart and did not clarify that they had actually made it themselves. I could be wrong but it does seem to be a precendent.

GuanYin

Morlar wrote: »

In fairness at this point the numbers arent the most important question its the principle of whether or not its ok to create a pie chart or a bar graph in excel (based on an extrapolation of limited data) and then present it as evidence to re-inforce your viewpoint without actually specifying that it is something you created in excel based on x,y,z.

If you do that without giving a context, date or a source it does look like it is part of a more independent and legitimate study in my view. That was certainly the case when it happened here earlier on today. To my knowledge on boards/politics that is the first time anyone has posted a link to a graph or a chart and did not clarify that they had actually made it themselves. I could be wrong but it does seem to be a precendent.

Ermm no. At this point, in this thread the most important questions are the ones that relate to the topic and issues of the discussion, such as the one I asked you.

If you want to discuss the rules, discuss them in the right place.

Morlar

psi wrote: »

Ermm no. At this point, in this thread the most important questions are the ones that relate to the topic and issues of the discussion, such as the one I asked you.

If you want to discuss the rules, discuss them in the right place.

Not to be thick - do you mean the helpdesk forum ? Or by pm or what ?

Re the question you asked me - yes variations that could affect the curve of immigration levels can go up or down. For example Holland could always change its laws tomorrow - severely curbing levels of intake - so yes the numbers could go either way in a manner that either a legitimate study or a 'put together in excel in 2 minutes' "plot" may not be able to factor for.